Page 1977 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Second, ACTTAB had ultimate responsibility for conducting full checks into the principals of VITAB, the company with whom they were about to enter into a major contract. Professor Pearce found that not only were the checks ACTTAB's responsibility, but ACTTAB's own correspondence to the Victorian TAB dated 1 September 1993 states:
Please note, our solicitors Macphillamy Cummins and Gibson are conducting full investigations into VITAB Ltd (including probity checks).
Although the Minister had quite clearly directed that full investigations be made into the principals of VITAB, these investigations were not made. At best, this omission by ACTTAB could be seen as an act of carelessness. At worst, however, it could be seen as a failure to carry out a proper direction given by the Minister for which ACTTAB was responsible.
Third, ACTTAB's advice in relation to the VITAB contract was not always accurate. For example, ACTTAB, without adequate checking, gave the Minister to understand that the VITAB contract was being actively sought by other State TABs. As Professor Pearce has pointed out, this was not the case, and only Queensland had been approached, and then informally, in relation to the VITAB contract.
Fourth, in relation to participation in Victoria's superpool, the advice received by ACTTAB concerning the impact of the VITAB contract on this arrangement was never in writing. In fact, the chief executive officer of ACTTAB had written to the Victorian TAB on 12 August 1993 requesting "urgent written agreement that ACTTAB's proposed arrangement with VITAB Limited will not in any way prevent the continuation of our ongoing agreement to transmit pools to you as executed on 31 August 1987 and amended on 1 February 1991 and on 31 March 1992". No definitive reply to this request was received by ACTTAB. The failure of ACTTAB to follow up on this request, and its consequent failure to protect the Territory's own access to a superpool, was again a failure to apply due care in the exercise of ACTTAB's duty to the ACT. ACTTAB failed to inform the Minister of any risk to the ACT's superpool arrangement.
Fifth, in relation to the VITAB deal itself, Professor Pearce points out that the deal was weighted in VITAB's favour, possibly to the detriment of ACTTAB itself. At no stage was the Minister advised of this and, again, due care was not exhibited by ACTTAB in advising the Minister of the merits of the proposed contract.
Madam Speaker, the Minister for Sport, Mr Lamont, sought advice from the ACT Government Solicitor concerning ACTTAB's performance in relation to the Betting (Totalizator Administration) Act 1964. In relation to ACTTAB's failure to conduct probity checks on VITAB, the Government Solicitor noted that, had these checks been undertaken, they may not have altered the decision to enter into the VITAB contract. However, the Government Solicitor further noted that the Minister was entitled to expect that the probity checks had been undertaken. He said that the failure to undertake these checks was "a serious failure to conduct an essential process".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .